"M.C. Vernon" wrote:
> I (and some other Cambridge people) am of the opinion that the current > hurd doesn't get the maximum benefit out of it's microkernel design, and > one of the reasons is that its microkernel is not very micro. Sure, Mach > is smaller than linux, but it's still pretty big. I think this is because > it tries to do too much: things like IDE, SCSI and so on should IMHO be > servers: the microkernel should do as little as possible Not that my opinion should count for much, but I am inclined to agree with the above. QNX, a commercial/proprietary microkernel O/S does very little else other than message passing. Whilst it aims to service a different market (it is a real-time O/S), it is an excellent MK design (In my opinion at least). Hurd has the potential to go beyond QNX in terms of overall usefulness but a large MK does not seem to do anything of value towards achieving this.
